“Really? Why should you want that "condition" to now become "prohibited" considering that it's presently "allowed"?” (marysara722)

Evidently you misunderstood what I said. I said nothing about changing the condition that a mother’s health not be endangered. I merely said that “everyone” has the right to work to bring about that which they believe to be best. If a person is for abortion he or she has the right to work to have abortions “allowed.” If a person is against abortion he or she has the right to work to “prohibit” abortions.

In considering the question about the health of the unborn, we confront the two different perspectives that are probably at the center of the abortion issue. One perspective (generally pro-life) is that the unborn is a living human being and therefore abortion is murder. Therefore, the wellbeing of the unborn is the main issue. The other perspective (generally pro-choice) is that the unborn is not a living human being and therefore abortion is not murder. Therefore, the well being of the unborn is pretty much inconsequential. Therefore, choice is the main issue.

What I just said is not new to anyone, and the two sides are not going to agree on whether abortion is murder or not. However, if we can try to understand the perspective of the other side, perhaps we can understand the seriousness of the issue and find some agreement on/at some point.

It seems to me that abortion is a serious choice and cannot be compared to everyday decisions we make. I take anything that might affect a mother’s life or health as serious (although I can see that this could be used as a “loophole,” but we hope that would not be the case.) The Justices in the majority opinion in Roe v Wade said they could not and did not need to establish the point at which human life began, but they saw a value in the “potentiality” of human life in which the state (society) could have a vested interest in protecting.

Since we are not able to agree on when a human life begins could both sides agree with Roe v Wade that there is value in the mere potentiality of the human life of the unborn?

When I entered this discussion a few weeks ago there were many posts. Now no one is posting. Is this normal? I called for rational discussion and trying to understand the position of the other side. It seems presumptuous to think this could have anything to do with the lack of posts, but I don’t understand why no one is posting. Is anyine still reading this?

When I entered this discussion a few weeks ago there were many posts. Now no one is posting. Is this normal? I called for rational discussion and trying to understand the position of the other side. It seems presumptuous to think this could have anything to do with the lack of posts, but I don’t understand why no one is posting. Is anyine still reading this?

Jocephas2

Actually, it IS fairly "normal" for some discussion threads to be "forgotten" or "ignored" or "overlooked" and NEW threads to sort of "take over". I don't think it is ever anything "personal".

Your post prior to this one talked about the two different "perspectives" on abortion. You stated that the Pro-Choice "perspective" is that the fetus is "not a human being" and therefore abortion is not "murder". Actually, I think very few, if any, Pro-Choicers make the argument that the fetus is "not a human being". Pro-Choicers (usually) acknowledge that an abortion terminates the life of a human fetus. For those Pro-Lifers who demand "stronger" language, an abortion "kills a human fetus, kills a human being". The "debate" is more about "personhood" and "legal personhood". It's more about the fact that the fetus is "inside the woman's body". It's about what kind of consequences there would be for women if the law says, "You are eight weeks pregnant and you MUST continue this pregnancy for the next seven months whether you want to or not. Your only other choice is an ILLEGAL abortion." Most Pro-Choicers would PREFER that all pregnancies were planned and wanted and healthy. But, for those that are not, Pro-Choicers believe the pregnant woman, not judges and legislators, should make the personal decision about whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

Now, Roe v. Wade mentions "viability", which some Pro-Lifers don't think is "relevant". Most Pro-Choicers believe it IS relevant and I think most Pro-Choicers accept and respect the Supreme Court's ruling that states can retrict and even ban abortions AFTER viability, unless the woman's life or health would be jeopardized if she continues the pregnancy. Of course, a Pro-Lifer who wants all abortions banned, even those at six-weeks, even those that are a result of rape or incest, and even wants the "morning-after pill" banned, (and even wants some birth-control pills to be banned) will probably never be open to a discussion about "viability". But, most Pro-Choicers DO believe that after viability the fetus has "value". And, it isn't that we think the fetus BEFORE viabilty has NO value, it's just that we cannot ignore the fact that the fetus is INSIDE the woman's body and we are not prepared to say that she should have NO say about her pregnancy before viabilty.

Anyway, yes, I personally believe there can be positive discussions between both sides of the abortion issue, IF both sides truly understand the other side's true "perspective". If nothing else, I would hope both sides could "respect"each other's views and not "demonize" or distort the other side's views. (No, I am NOT accusing you or anyone of doing that! And, I apologize if I have ever done that MYSELF).

When I entered this discussion a few weeks ago there were many posts. Now no one is posting. Is this normal? I called for rational discussion and trying to understand the position of the other side. It seems presumptuous to think this could have anything to do with the lack of posts, but I don’t understand why no one is posting. Is anyine still reading this?

Jocephas2

You asked me questions, and I responded (post 48), but you never wrote back. When somebody doesn't write back, I usually figure they're finished discussing with me. No big deal!

“Your post prior to this one talked about the two different "perspectives" on abortion. You stated that the Pro-Choice "perspective" is that the fetus is "not a human being" and therefore abortion is not "murder". Actually, I think very few, if any, Pro-Choicers make the argument that the fetus is "not a human being". Pro-Choicers (usually) acknowledge that an abortion terminates the life of a human fetus.” (Mmichael)

I am surprised that you say most pro-choicers agree that the fetus is a human being. I was under the impression that pro-choicers believe that the human fetus is not yet a human being. Are you saying that, “Yes, it is a human being, but we can take his or her life.” If you are, that is astounding! What are you and I except human beings, but I hope no one feels he or she has the right to take our lives. Surely the pro-choice position must be that the fetus is not yet a human being.

"You asked me questions, and I responded (post 48), but you never wrote back. When somebody doesn't write back, I usually figure they're finished discussing with me. No big deal!" (Newsjunkie)

Actually, there are several things I wanted to reply to, but when several points are made, to reply to all of them makes the reply to long.

You asked me when (under what circumstances did I feel abortion was immoral. If I had said, “I believe abortion is immoral because God says . . . .”, then you would have said that I was forcing religion. Instead, I gave two perspectives. I said that if evolution were true and there is no God, then abortion is never immoral. You responded that we should not talk about evolution, but evolution has everything to do with a basis of morality. I said that if evolution is true and there is no God, then nothing is either moral or immoral.

It is not that the atheist cannot be a very moral person. He can have very high morals, but he can have those morals only for himself. He cannot expect others to accept his ideas on morality. If evolution is true (the no God kind) there is no philosophical basis for morality.

Let me ask you the same question you asked me. “Under what circumstances do you believe aborting is immoral (if any), and how do you justify that belief?”